# Uneven size per shards
**URL:** https://discuss.elastic.co/t/uneven-size-per-shards/144852
**Category:** Elasticsearch
**Created:** [August 17, 2018, 8:25am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/uneven-size-per-shards/144852 "2018-08-17T08:25:45Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@lazam](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/lazam)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2018, 8:25am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/uneven-size-per-shards/144852/1 "2018-08-17T08:25:45Z")
Hello!
I saw some previous posts about uneven shard distribution but I was unable to get information that I need.
I have an index which has 2 Shards and 1 Replication:
> index-name 1 r STARTED 1510504 546.6mb 10.10.1.34 node-name
> index-name 1 r STARTED 1510504 458.4mb 10.10.1.229 node-name
> index-name 1 p STARTED 1510504 502.9mb 10.10.1.224 node-name
> index-name 0 p STARTED 374273705 51.4gb 10.105.1.34 node-name
> index-name 0 r STARTED 374273705 52.6gb 10.10.1.139 node-name
> index-name 0 r STARTED 374273705 51.4gb 10.10.1.57 node-name
Based from the API explanation, there's no reason to do a rebalance but as we see the docs and size difference is significant. I don't see any important output in the deciders that might affect the result. Below are some result of explanation:
- "rebalance\_explanation" : "cannot rebalance as no target node exists that can both allocate this shard and improve the cluster balance",
- "can\_remain\_on\_current\_node" : "yes",
- "can\_rebalance\_cluster" : "yes",
- "can\_rebalance\_to\_other\_node" : "no",
Here are some other notable settings:
- The current index settings mostly use the default settings for cluster allocation.
- The same index has a balance shard distribution in dev and staging environment. Only the production has this status.
- We're doing a deletion of docs in this index.
- We're using custom \_id for each docs.
Kindly let me know if there's anymore information needed.
Thank you!
---
### Author:  [@spinscale](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/spinscale)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2018, 9:17am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/uneven-size-per-shards/144852/2 "2018-08-17T09:17:12Z")
are you using routing? or parent/child or the join type? There must be a reason why one shard only has 500MB and the other has 100x the size.
---
### Author:  [@lazam](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/lazam)
#### Post date: [August 21, 2018, 2:19am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/uneven-size-per-shards/144852/3 "2018-08-21T02:19:14Z")
Hi Alexander,
We're only using the default routing provided by Elasticsearch, and not a custom one. Below is the cluster settings config that we have.
```
{
"persistent" : { },
"transient" : {
"cluster" : {
"routing" : {
"allocation" : {
"enable" : "all",
"exclude" : {
"_ip" : "10.5.1.109"
}
}
}
}
}
}
```
The IP which is excluded doesn't exist anymore.
---
### Author:  [@spinscale](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/spinscale)
#### Post date: [August 21, 2018, 7:24am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/uneven-size-per-shards/144852/4 "2018-08-21T07:24:30Z")
sorry for being unclear. This was not the routing I am referring to. Are you using the `routing` parameter when indexing data?
If not, how do your ids look like?
---
### Author:  [@lazam](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/lazam)
#### Post date: [August 21, 2018, 8:47am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/uneven-size-per-shards/144852/5 "2018-08-21T08:47:11Z")
We're not using any routing parameter when indexing data.
Here's some sample of IDs in that index.
> "586ab92846e0fb0001f74910",
> "59376fa49948f20001aec204",
> "59376f81a5ca4f0001774bf1",
> "59376fa9a5ca4f00017760ea",
> "5896b3c046e0fb00013a7537",
> "5895b69e46e0fb0001a0ea88",
> "5a0e121aa752c50001d0676f",
> "5a0e009e71bf640001b42140"
---
### Author:  [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2018, 8:47am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/uneven-size-per-shards/144852/6 "2018-09-18T08:47:22Z")
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.